Method and system for paying for bet responses

ABSTRACT

We disclose a method for operating an online computer database system that enables users to pay make bet offers and respond to bet offers in a variety of ways. The method, implemented via the computer system, displays these bet offers, bet challenges, and the responses (or lack of responses) to those offers and challenges, thus providing new ways to force people to explicitly or implicitly express their opinions.

CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application references and builds upon U.S. Pat. No. 6,443,841.

STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH

Not applicable.

BACKGROUND

1. Field of the Invention

The invention relates to betting methods and media for communicating opinions.

2. Description of Related Art

Chapter 18 of U.S. Pat. No. 6,443,841 disclosed methods for enabling a user to pose a challenge to another user to create a bet offer from a specified statement. Chapter 19 of U.S. Pat. No. 6,443,841 disclosed methods for paying for attention, especially methods for paying people to make bet offers and respond to bet offers.

We incorporate U.S. Pat. No. 6,443,841 by reference and add some new matter regarding describing methods and systems for paying people to make and/or react to bet offers.

OBJECT OF THE INVENTION

An object of the invention is to provide ways to pay people to express their opinions through bet offers and responses to bet offers.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

We disclose a method for operating an online computer database system that enables users to pay make bet offers and respond to bet offers in a variety of ways. The method, implemented via the computer system, displays these bet offers, bet challenges, and the responses (or lack of responses) to those offers and challenges, thus providing new ways to force people to explicitly or implicitly express their opinions.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

There are no drawings.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

Contents

Preface: Problems of Communication and the Invention's Solutions

Initial Definitions

Module 1 describes methods for enabling a user to enter an offer targeted to a specific person or persons or org or orgs. Several different offers are described.

Module 2 describes methods for registering responses from targets of offers.

Module 3 describes methods for ensuring receipt of offers.

Module 4 describes methods for authenticating responders.

Module 5 describes methods for transferring payment.

Module 6 describes methods for targeting more than one person with an offer, and ordering the targets according to priority of getting paid.

Module 7 describes methods for enabling more than one user to contribute to an offer to pay for a bet-response.

Module 8 describes methods for enabling people to post rates for making and/or reacting to bet offers on particular subjects.

Preface: Problems of Communication and the Invention's Solutions

Galileo Bet Challenges

A problem of public speech is how to elicit an honest opinion on a subject from politicians and business decision makers who may be hurt by being honest.

To partially solve this problem, we introduce three challenges:

-   -   (1) A Create-a-Bet-Offer Challenge     -   (2) A React-to-a-Bet-Offer Challenge     -   (3) A Bet-on-a-Neutral-Party-Statement Challenge

These challenges force a person (an individual or an organization) to:

-   -   (a) Make a bet offer—a specific expression of uncertainty—about         a subject, or     -   (b) Admit to ignorance about the subject, or     -   (c) Show that she is hiding something.

We name these challenges after Galileo Galilei, who stood for honest, expression that acknowledges uncertainty.

Brief Comments on the Uses of Galileo Challenges

As tools for forcing honest expression, Galileo Challenges can be important for public and political speech. For instance, the Create-a-Bet Challenge is well suited to asking a person to convert a public statement he has previously made into a bet. Imagine that a Senator says, “I think decriminalizing drugs would be a national disaster.” You could then ask him to specify what he means through a bet. In a bet he must give specific answers the following questions: What does “decriminalizing drugs” mean? What does “national disaster” mean? What are the odds that this “national disaster” will occur?

As in this hypothetical example, one often says: “I think so and so will happen.” But, a person does not just “think” that some event will happen, she thinks there is some probability it will happen. A person may not provide a numerical probability estimate, such as “I think there is a 30% chance . . . ” but a feeling of probability is part of any guess.

Indeed, we do not usually think in numerical probabilities and we do not usually state probabilities in numbers. Yet, being specific about predictions and expressing our uncertainty with numerical probability estimates is usually the more informative, scientific approach.

And, it is the better approach when the stakes are high.

It is also the proper economic approach because a proper estimate of the cost of an investment should take into account the best estimate of the probability that the investment will succeed. This estimate dramatically affects the projected cost of success.

For example, if one thinks that a program, say, the missile defense system, has a 50% chance of succeeding. Then, by simple logic, one also thinks that the cost of success is, on average, twice the budgeted cost. That's because over a series of programs that have a 50% chance of success, half will fail. The costs of the failures need to be added to the costs of the successes to yield an average cost.

The expected cost of the success of any project is: (the reciprocal of chance of success)×(the definite cost)

So, lawmakers should, where feasible, state in specific terms the effect of passing a proposed law or program and state the chances that the effect will occur if the law or program passes. Further, they should state the effect of defeating a proposed law or program, and state the chances that the effect will occur if the law or program is defeated.

Of course, at present, lawmakers rarely even state numerical probability estimates that a law or program will succeed in achieving specific objectives. Only if we force lawmakers to reveal their uncertainty, as in a Galileo Challenge, will they do so.

-   -   Politics offers another good example. We all know that they         don't know what they're doing in Washington. It's not that         they're fools; it's just that nobody knows how to handle many of         the problems. A lot of experts have studied these subjects. But         they know much less than they will admit. If somebody ran for         office saying that they didn't have answers, nobody would pay         attention to him. Everybody wants an answer. But someday, maybe,         everybody will slowly come around to the realization that the         experts don't know almost everything.         -   Richard Feynman, Interview, US. News and World Report     -   The great obstacle to discovering the shape of the earth, the         continents, and the ocean was not ignorance, but the illusion of         knowledge.         -   Daniel Boorstin, The Discoverers             Create-a-Bet-Offer Challenge

In a Create-a-Bet-Offer Challenge, you state the subject you want a person to bet on, and then you offer that person an amount of money to create a bet offer about the subject. Your challenge and the target person's response are displayed publicly.

A person creating a bet offer cannot hide by using vague language; he must use highly specific speech that is precise enough to test for truth, so that the bet can be settled.

The foundation of honest speech is specificity, as Galileo pointed out in an essay defending of the scientific method.

-   -   There is no doubt whatever that by introducing irregular lines         one may save not only the appearance in question but any other.         Yet I warn Sarsi that far from being of any assistance to his         teacher's case, this would only prejudice it more seriously . .         . Lines are called regular when, having fixed and definite         description, they are susceptible of definition and of having         their properties demonstrated.     -   Irregular lines are those which have no determinacy whatever,         but are indefinite and casual and hence undefinable; no property         of such lines can be demonstrated, and in a word nothing can be         known about them. Hence, to say, “Such events take place thanks         to an irregular path” is the same as to say, “I do not know why         they occur.” The introduction of such lines is in no way         superior to the “sympathy,” “antipathy,” “occult properties,”         “influences,” and other terms employed by some philosophers as a         cloak for the correct reply, which would be: “I do not know.”         That reply is as much more tolerable than the others as candid         honesty is more beautiful than deceitful duplicity.         -   Galileo Galilei, The Assayer, 1623         -   translated by Stillman Drake

In creating a bet, a bettor must also must give the odds, a probability estimate that is a specific, explicit statement of uncertainty.

-   -   Now the next subject, and the last main subject that I want to         talk about, is the one I really consider the most important and         the most serious. And that has to do with the question of         uncertainty and doubt. A scientist is never certain. We all know         that. We know that all our statements are approximate statements         with different degrees of certainty; that when a statement is         made the question is not whether it is true or false but rather         how likely it is to be true or false.         -   Richard Feynman,         -   Address at Conference Celebrating 400th Anniversary of             Galileo's birth, 1964

In creating a bet offer, a bettor also states how much money he is willing to risk, which is usually a powerful indicator of his confidence in the opinion stated in his bet offer.

Now, let us see how a Create-a-Bet-Offer Challenge can force a person to stake out a specific position and acknowledge uncertainty, or admit she is hiding something.

In creating a bet offer, a person can set the odds so that she thinks she is getting a good deal. Therefore, she cannot logically say she is refusing to create a bet offer because it is a bad financial deal. She cannot hide behind the “I don't bet” excuse.

But a person can say that she is not going to waste her valuable time in creating offers. It follows, then, that a person who is offered a sum of money to create a bet offer has six basic responses:

-   -   1. Accept and give a bet opinion on a subject.     -   2. Decline and say, “You are not paying me enough to create the         bet offer.”     -   3. Decline and say, “I do not know enough to bet.”     -   4. Decline and say, “No comment,” thereby demonstrating that she         is not willing to be specific or acknowledge her uncertainty         about the subject.     -   5. Decline and say, “Giving a bet opinion (being honest) would         cost me more outside the bet than the expected profit from the         bet.”     -   6. Decline and say, “I'm tapped out. I don't have any funds         available to bet.”

If the target of a Galileo Challenge says that she is not being paid enough to create a bet, then forcing her response becomes a matter of finding her labor rate.

What is a reasonable sum of money to offer someone to create a bet offer? That depends on the person.

A Create-a-Bet-Offer Challenge leaves a target person with wiggle room to create a bet that avoids the subject that the challenger wants exposed. The React-to-a-Bet-Offer Challenge is better suited to pinning a person down on a narrow question.

React-to-a-Bet-Offer Challenge

In the React to a Bet Challenge, you make a bet offer and then pay a person to review the offer and decide to accept or decline it.

Your challenge and the target person's response are displayed publicly.

By stating an opinion through a bet, you are stating it precisely and forcing your target to acknowledge his opinion and uncertainty about the very specific topic of your bet.

A person who is offered a reasonable sum of money to review a bet offer can then:

-   -   1. Accept and thereby state his bet opinion.     -   2. Reply with a new offer (he may, for example, change the odds         of your offer) and thereby state his bet opinion.     -   3. Decline and say, “You are not paying me enough to review your         bet offer.”     -   4. Decline and say, “Your bet statement is biased, so I do not         want to comment on it.”     -   5. Decline and say, “I do not know enough to bet.”     -   6. Decline and say, “No comment,” thereby demonstrating that she         is not willing to be specific or acknowledge her uncertainty         about the subject of your bet offer.     -   7. Decline and say, “Accepting the bet would cost me more         outside the bet than the expected profit from the bet.”     -   8. Decline and say, “I'm tapped out. I don't have any funds         available to bet.”

What is a reasonable sum of money to offer someone to review a bet offer? That depends on the person.

The problem with a React-to-a-Bet-Offer Challenge is that the challenger may pose a bet statement that is biased. Thus, we introduce the challenge below, which prevents the challenger or the target from creating a biased bet statement that can nullify the significance of the bet offer.

Bet on a Neutral-Party-Statement Challenge

The idea of a betting on a Neutral Party Statement is similar to the idea of a debate in which a neutral moderator chooses the question and the debaters react to that question.

In a Bet-on-a-Neutral-Party-Statement Challenge you pay Bet Press to find a neutral party to create a bet statement about a particular subject. (A bet statement is a statement that can found true or false for a reasonable amount of money and in a reasonable amount of time.)

You offer to pay a target without seeing the bet statement.

You specify:

-   -   (a) The subject of the bet     -   (b) How much you will pay the target     -   (c) The minimum amount of money that the target must risk in a         bet offer.

After the neutral party creates the statement, and if the target of your challenge agrees to get paid, then she has to:

-   -   (a) Review the statement,     -   (b) State the odds that it is true,     -   (c) Pick a side true or false and     -   (d) Put an amount of money at risk in a bet offer.

The neutral party's bet statement and the target's response are displayed publicly.

By allowing a neutral party to create the bet statement you are showing that you are not trying to trap the target with a biased bet statement. Likewise, the target cannot make a biased bet statement.

The idea is to let a neutral person encapsulate an issue/subject in a bet statement and then get an honest expression of probability about that statement from the target.

A person who is offered a reasonable sum of money to review a the bet statement and make a bet offer about it can then:

-   -   1. Accept and thereby state his bet opinion.     -   2. Decline and say, “You are not paying me enough to review the         bet statement.”     -   3. Decline and say, “I do not know enough to bet.”     -   4. Decline and say, “No comment,” thereby demonstrating that she         is not willing to be specific or acknowledge her uncertainty         about the subject of your bet offer.     -   5. Decline and say, “Giving a bet opinion (being honest) about         the neutral party statement would cost me more outside the bet         than the expected profit from the bet.”     -   6. Decline and say, “I'm tapped out. I don't have any funds         available to bet.”

What is a reasonable sum of money to offer someone to review a neutral bet statement and make a bet offer on it? That depends on the person.

Initial Definitions

Bet-response means a bet offer or a stated (public) refusal to make a bet offer about a specified subject or a specified bettable statement. Many distinct types of bet-response are possible, so the term bet-response is somewhat broad and imprecise.

An offer to pay for a bet-response (PFBR) or a pay for a bet-response offer (PFBRO) means an offer in which a user offers to pay a person or persons or organization to provide a bet opinion of some sort.

Sender means a user who creates a PFBR offer and directs (“sends”) it to a target, which may be a person, or class of persons, or an organization.

Target means a person, class of persons, or an organization to which a PFBR offer has been directed (“sent”).

Escrow agent means a system-authorized user who has the ability to approve the transfer of a payment to an intended user, usually a target, from an escrow account that corresponds to a particular PFBR offer.

Neutral, statement creator means a system-authorized user who creates bettable statements based upon non-bettable descriptions of a subject, provided by a sender. This kind of user is called neutral because she has no allegiance to either a sender or target.

Module 1: Steps for Entering an Offer to Pay for a Bet-Response

The invention provides a method of (or system for) enabling a sender to enter one or more different kinds of pay-for-a-bet and/or react-to-a-bet offer, also called PFBR offers.

The target's name/identity will be inherently part of such an offer.

A sender will be identified by the system, but the sender's identity can optionally be part of—displayed with—a PFBR offer.

Thus, offers can be found (searched for) in the system under the target's name and, possibly, the sender's name.

Further, the target's response or lack of response (see Module 2 below) will be stored and displayed along with the PFBR.

In describing the offers, we will repeat disclosures originally made in Chapters 18 and 19 of U.S. Pat. No. 6,443,841 (and in the Preface above). We do so for the sake of a fuller explanation of the options that the invention can enable.

Certain offers described below require that a target make a bet offer in order to be paid. In these offers, a sender can specify (and the inventive method and system can enable the sender to specify):

-   -   the amount the sender requires that the target risk in the bet         offer,     -   whether the target must make a lock-in commitment,     -   the duration of the offer.         Illustrative Scenario: Trying to Get a Bet-Response from a Chief         Financial Officer

For illustration's sake, let us imagine one scenario in which the offers described below can be used. We will imagine that a sender wants to elicit a bet-response (an “honest” opinion) from the chief financial officer (CFO) of a company whose stock has dropped. The sender is an investor who would like to know if the company is a good investment, in particular, whether the company is in danger of defaulting on any of its loans.

So, we imagine that the sender uses the invention to makes the PFBR offers described below. (In practice, a sender probably would not make all of these offers at once.) For simplicity, we'll assume all offers are for $1,000.

Offers to Pay for a Bet-Response (PFBRO's)

1. Sender Offers to Pay a Target to Make a Bet Offer on a Specified Subject.

A sender can ask a target to bet on a specified subject, by which we mean a topic that is described in a somewhat vague statement that is not precise enough to be bet upon directly. For example, the sender can offer to pay the CFO $1,000 to make a bet offer on the subject of: Is your company in danger of going under?

The CFO, in this example case, would have to then convert the vague statement, Is your company in danger of going under?, into a bettable statement of his choice, and further, specify the odds (or other payoff rules) and stakes, and the rest of the information required for a bet offer.

Accordingly, the invention can provide a method of (or system for) enabling a sender to choose to enter a PFBRO in which the sender specifies: the subject that the target is to create a bet offer about.

2. Sender Offers to Pay a Target to Make a Bet Offer About a Statement in the Past that the Target has Made.

A sender can cite a statement that a target has made in the past and ask that the target convert that statement into a bet offer.

For example, assume a CFO says in an investment conference, “We are confident that our current business will comfortably support existing debt levels.”

The sender could then offer to pay the CFO to convert this statement into a bet offer.

Accordingly, the invention can provide a method of (or system for) enabling a sender to choose to enter a PFBRO in which the sender specifies: a statement that the target made in the past, which the sender will pay the target to convert into a bet offer.

3. Sender Offers to Pay a Target to Make a Bet Offer About a Statement in the Past that Someone Else, or an Org, has Made, Other than the Sender or the Target.

Almost the same as above, a sender can ask that the target convert a specified statement made by someone else or by some org into a bet offer.

For example, imagine that the President of a company makes a statement such as, “We are confident that our current business will comfortably support existing debt levels.”

The sender could ask that the CFO convert this statement into a bet offer.

Accordingly, the invention can provide a method of (or system for) enabling a sender to choose to enter a PFBRO in which the sender specifies: a specified statement (or citation data identifying a specified statement) that the some specified person or org has made in the past, which the sender will pay the target to convert into a bet offer.

4. Sender Offers to Pay a Target to Make a Bet Offer About a Specified Bettable Statement.

A sender can offer to pay a target to make a bet offer about a bettable statement that the sender specifies.

For example, a sender who is interested in what a CFO really thinks about the financial condition of the CFO's company could offer to pay the CFO $1,000 to make a bet offer about the following bettable statement: By Jan. 1, 2004, Pinnacle Holdings will default on at least one of its loans or will renegotiate with at least one lender, resulting in a dilution of the ownership of current stockholders of at least 10%.

Accordingly, the invention can provide a method of (or system for) enabling a sender to choose to enter a PFBRO in which the sender specifies: the bettable statement that the target is to create a bet offer about.

5. Sender Offers to Pay a Target to Read a Specified Bet Offer Made.

A sender can offer to pay a target to read a bet offer, which may or may not be made by the sender. For simplicity, we will assume that the sender makes the bet offer.

By being paid, the target must admit that he has reviewed the bet offer. The target's willingness to then accept or refuse the offer can have significance. For example, a sender might present the following bet offer:

-   -   Bettable Statement: By Jan. 1, 2004, Pinnacle Holdings will         default on at least one of its loans or will renegotiate with at         least one lender, resulting in a dilution of the ownership of         current stockholders of at least 10%.     -   Odds: 1-1     -   Side I choose: TRUE     -   Stake I risk: $50,000

Now, if the CFO refuses to accept this bet, then one might infer that the CFO believes the odds are indeed close to, greater than 50% that the company will default on a loan or dilute shareholders. Conversely, if the CFO accepts the offer, then one might infer that the CFO believes that the odds are less than 50% that the company will default or dilute.

Accordingly, the invention can provide a method of (or system for) enabling a sender to choose to enter a PFBRO in which the sender specifies a bet offer made by the sender and/or other bettor(s).

6. Sender Offers to Pay a Target to Both Read a Specified Bet Offer and Accept the Offer.

A sender can offer to pay a target to both read a bet offer by the sender or another bettor and accept the offer. If the target does not accept the offer then the payment is void.

For example, taking the illustration just above, a sender can require that the CFO target not only read the bet offer, but also accept it, in order to get paid.

This type of offer can be more useful that simply paying a target to read a bet offer. The offer does not leave the sender vulnerable to having a target just take the PFBR money with a “no comment,” response.

Note, too, that the sender can specify that the target must put up a certain amount of money at stake, an amount that could be greater than, equal to, or less than the amount needed to cover the sender's stake.

Accordingly, the invention can provide a method of (or system for) enabling a sender to choose to enter a PFBRO in which the sender specifies:

-   -   a bet offer made by the sender     -   a requirement that the target accept the bet offer     -   a requirement that the target put up a certain amount of money         at stake.         7. Sender Offers to Pay a Target to Make a Bet Offer About a         Bettable Statement Created by a Neutral Third Part Where the         Subject of the Statement is Specified by the Sender.

A problem with the PFBR offers above is that the target can create a bet that does not really provide an honest opinion, but that evades the issue that the sender wants the target to provide a bet opinion about. Alternatively, a sender can pay a target to respond to the sender's bet offer. But, in this case, the target may complain that the bet offer is an unfair characterization of an issue.

A solution to these two problems is to have the sender specify a general topic/subject and then specify that neutral third party—a neutral, statement creator—who will create the bettable statement that the target can make a bet about. For example, the sender might specify the following subject: The financial condition of Pinnacle Holdings. A neutral, statement creator can then create a bettable statement on this topic.

A variety of methods are possible for choosing a neutral statement creator. The inventive method and system can include a system-authorized class of statement creators who are neutral and can be categorized according to their expertise. Further, the invention can include steps for enabling a sender to request that such a user create a bettable statement based upon a subject that the sender specifies.

The inventive method and system can also enable neutral, statement creator to communicate with a sender to get a better idea of the subject that the sender has in mind.

And a sender can pay a statement creator.

Accordingly, the invention can provide a method of (or system for) enabling a sender to choose to enter a PFBRO in which the sender specifies:

a subject,

a statement creator to enter a bettable statement about the subject to be displayed along with the PFBRO.

2. Module for Enabling Responses to PFBRO's

As noted above, and in Patent U.S. Pat. No. 6,443,841, the invention includes steps for enabling a target to respond to a PFBRO. Further, the response, or lack of response, is displayed along with the offer.

The invention can also enable a target to enter a text comment and/or select from a set of standard responses, including the responses described in the Preface above.

3. Module for Ensuring Receipt of PFBRO's

The invention will enable anyone to look up her own name and find PFBRO's directed to her. Similarly, the invention can enable a user to specify an email “address for service” where senders can send PFBRO's.

Yet, in some cases, these two channels to a target may not suffice; a target may not specify an address, and may not use the system to find offers.

Thus, the invention can include steps for enabling a sender to specify that a PFBRO is to be delivered by a physical delivery service of some sort, such as Federal Express or the Post Office. Other well-known “proof-of-service” methods can be used as well.

Accordingly, the invention can provide steps for enabling a sender to specify a mode of delivery for a PFBRO, and further, the enter evidence that the PFBRO was delivered to its intended target.

Yet what if a target is a class of persons, such as all the employees of a given company? Most commonly, a target that is a group will be a group that is associated with an organization. Thus, to accommodate the case of a class of persons, who belong to an organization, the invention can provide a method of (or system for) enabling a sender to direct a PFBRO to a named group of people, or to people that belong to a named org. That is, the sender can specify the group or org.

Other users can then find PFBRO's under the name of orgs, just as users can find offers under the names of individuals.

While this method does not guarantee delivery to all the people that belong to a named group or org, it does make delivery of a PFBRO to its target group more likely.

4. Module for Authenticating Responders

The invention will include authentication processes for ensuring that a user who responds to a PFBRO is the genuine target of that offer.

5. Module for Transferring Payment

The invention will include methods for transferring funds from a sender to a target. These methods can include an escrow account into which a sender's funds are kept until the target has fulfilled the obligations of the PFBRO.

The escrow account can include third-party oversight by a human escrow agent who can determine whether the conditions have been met. Upon approval of the escrow agent, entered into the system, the payment offered in a PFBRO can be transferred to the target (via any known method, such as, to a target's internal or external bank account).

6. Module for Prioritizing Targets

The invention will include processes for enabling a sender to direct the same offer to more than one target. In making a PFBRO, the sender will commit a certain amount of money, which we will call the sender's budget. Given that a sender's budget is often limited, it useful to enable a sender to prioritize targets according to which targets will be paid if there are not enough funds available to pay them all.

For example, assume that Sue makes offers to pay $5,000 to a company's President and its CFO and any other employee in the company to make a bet about whether the company will default on a loan within 3 years. And, assume that Sue only has $10,000 to pay targets to make bet-responses. And assume she prefers to elicit a bet-response from the company President. Then, she can list the targets and prioritize them so that if her PFBRO is accepted by more than one target, the offer is struck with her preferred targets, in order of priority, until her budget ($10,000 in this case) is exhausted.

Thus, invention will provide a method of (or a system for): enabling a user to enter a list of targets and to prioritize those targets according to the order in which target's bet-response will be accepted by the sender over the others in the list.

If more than one target can accept a PFBRO, then using a deadline is a useful method for deciding when to determine which targets can strike an agreement with the sender to get paid for a bet-response. By deadline method we mean that the sender sets a deadline. Before that deadline, any number of eligible targets can agree to accept the offer. When the deadline expires, the offers are then struck according to the target's priority and according to the sender's budget.

It is also possible to divide the budget. This method is particularly appropriate where a target is a group of people, such as the employees of a company, and where the sender has not specified a priority order within that group. In this case it is reasonable to divide the budget or assign it randomly to anyone in the target group.

Accordingly, the invention will provide a method of (or system for) enabling more than one user to accept a PFBRO and, further, for striking offers between a sender and multiple targets who have accepted the offer, according to the priority of those targets, as specified by the sender and within the limits of the budget that the sender has committed to the PFBRO.

The striking process can be automated within the system. The striking process can also be aided by a system administrator who can be paid for his efforts.

Prioritizing the Acceptance of Bet Offers

The method of prioritizing PFBRO's can also apply analogously to prioritizing the acceptance of bet offers. This kind of process was disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,443,841.

The disclosure of this specification adds some processes regarding PFBRO's. Where the processes disclosed here are novel, and where they can be applied to the targeting—restricting the acceptance, that is—of bet offers, we assert that these processes can be incorporated into the invention of U.S. Pat. No. 6,443,841.

Moreover, these processes may be split off into their own distinct inventive set of processes for targeting bet offers and PFBRO's, especially given the reality of limited budget for paying for bet-responses and limited funds for making bet offers.

A future utility application may elaborate on the applications of the methods disclosed here where bet offers are concerned.

7. Module for Enabling More than One Sender to Contribute to a PFBRO

The invention can also include processes for enabling more than one sender to contribute to a PFBRO. This capability can be especially important where a wealthy target is concerned who requires a large amount of money in order to make a bet-response.

To achieve this object, the inventive method and system can enable an initial sender to post a PFBRO and further enable the sender to, along with the offer, request that other users contribute money to the offer and become partner senders.

The inventive method and system can further provide a process for enabling a user who finds such an offer to commit to contributing to the offer. The amount that any such user commits to paying can be added to the total amount pledged, and put in a common escrow account. The inventive system can also display that more than one sender has contributed to the offer and can display the identities of the all the senders.

8. Module for Posting Rates Charged by Users for Responding to an Offer

If a system exists for paying people to make and/or respond to bet offers, then it is also useful to enable users to post the rates they charge for responding to such offers.

Thus, the invention can provide a method of (or system for) enabling a user to post the amount of money that the user requires to be compensated for making a bet-response.

The invention can enable a user to set a rate for each different kind of PFBRO the system enables (see the description of Module 1 above).

For example, a user can set a rate of $500 for making a bet offer on a sender specified subject.

Accordingly, the invention can enable a user to view a list of types of PFBRO's, and to specify a compensation rate for each kind. The resulting rate sheet can then include the user's name and can be displayed to senders and other users of the inventive system.

In addition to a rate for making and/or responding to a bet offer, a user can specify the minimum amount he will risk if he responds with a bet offer. This commitment can show the user's general willingness to make a meaningful bet offer about a given topic or statement specified by any sender.

In addition to posting a minimum amount he will put at stake, a user can also post the profit margin he will build into any bet offer he makes (see U.S. Pat. No. 6,443,841 on the usefulness of posting a desired profit margin). 

1. a method for operating a computer database system, including input and output means, for the purpose of enabling a user called a sender to enter and display a pay-for-a-bet response (PFBR) offer directed at a target person, and enabling a target person to enter and display a response, said method comprise of the following steps: a. enabling a sender to enter to enter and display a pay-for-a-bet response (PFBR) offer directed at a target person, said offer including at least: the target's identity and, optionally, the minimum amount the sender requires that the target risk in the bet offer, whether the target must make a lock-in commitment, the duration of the offer and the sender's identity, b. enabling users to find PFBR offers by searching under the target's name, c. enabling a target of a PFBR offer to enter and display a response to an offer aimed at the target, d. storing and displaying the target's response or lack of response along with the associated PFBR offer. 